zombie-themed guns/ammo: fun or legal liability??

Status
Not open for further replies.
I recall a police case. The officer shot a mentally delayed individual with a gardening instrument. The person didn't follow commands and kept approaching. Getting clobbered with a garden tool might be nasty. Could he do something else, was it a good shoot - that's why there was a trial.

The officer at the time of the shooting had a military style buzz cut. When he went to trial and testified he wore a conservative three piece suit, his hair was grown out and styled in a reasonable manner. He wore reading glasses when he read over some report to the jury. He could have showed up in his intimidating haircut and mirror shades.

Guess why he didn't. Even wearing glasses influences juries.
 
As Dr. Meyer points out, appearances can matter.

If he pays attention to his lawyer, the defendant is going to show up for trial well groomed, conservatively dressed in clean clothes. Neither of the lawyers will comment on his haircut, but the jury will see his haircut.
 
If you use any weapon in your home against an aggressor who has entered your home and you get sent to trial..... Well, something has gone wrong with the system- zombie gun, or not.
Click to expand...

The 'aggressor' might be ambiguous. A young teenage boy stealing your laptop. A drunken neighbor who stumbles in the back door.

You might feel that person in your house was an aggressor. But the system did not fail per se if the authorities feel that you did not need to shoot - even in castle doctrine state.

There is no law of physics that clearly defines aggressor. There can be considered a continuum of threat - who decides what was a threat. The DA, courts, juries, etc. as it is decided if you go to trial and then the trial starts.

The problem is folks seem to think that some critical incident will always be so clear in their favor. Not necessarily.
 
That does make sense.....

I often wondered about Texas law that states deadly force is authorized for trespassing at night and criminal mischief at night.

Also to prevent a person fleeing with property if other means fail...

There's much murk in the waters... I guess it wouldn't be wise to muddy it up further with a zombie gun..
 
tough call and really depends on if your town is full of people easily duped. some locales have educated people, logic and reason determine most things for them. others have rather simple minded folks who are governed by emotion more than anything else. only you know where you will get a fair trial, where facts determine the outcome instead of playing on the stupidity of the jury.

Punisher grips, zombie guns/ammo, they all mean nothing by law because a righteous shoot is just that, no matter what the tool used.

the funny part is the Winchester Black Talon was taken off the market because of the liberal dribble that it was used only on the Black Felon. Yet the Winchester Silver Tip Hollow Point hasn't been chastised for any werewolf targeting (yet).
 
JERRYS. said:
. . . .Punisher grips, zombie guns/ammo, they all mean nothing by law because a righteous shoot is just that, no matter what the tool used. . . .
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that's not the way it works. I'm sure we'd all like to think that we'd never be involved in anything less than a righteous shoot, but the shooter doesn't get to decide whether it was righteous. A good shoot is a good shoot, if, and only if the police, investigators, prosecuting authority, judge and/or jury (or some combination thereof) decide that it was. To claim that "Punisher grips, zombie guns/ammo, they all mean nothing by law" overlooks the basic realities of our legal system. Such things might mean nothing in a clear-cut case of SD or HD, but none of us get to make the decision as to when or where we might be required to defend ourselves. The bad guys make that decision.
 
Just got done at the TX Bar CLE seminar this past weekend. 181 lawyers and some other folks with expert interest listened to Ayoob and I discuss such issues.

I will opine that that entire crowd would view the 'righteous shoot' viewpoint as utterly ridiculous.

It is as much internet BS as the idea that a 45 hit on your thumb will spin you around as you drop dead.

It is embarrassing for someone to spout that cliche in today's world.
 
Spats and Glenn, I don't know if youre purposely misrepresenting what I said or if its by accident.

Spats, if a shooting is ruled as justified by the investigating agency, will it change after the fact if you now put punisher grips on the gun?

Glenn, would you feel better semantically speaking if I said a justified use of lethal force?
 
You miss the point. Very simple.

Call it righteous or justified - that is not clear until the entire process is over.

About the investigating agency - a study I reference found that in an ambiguous situation of carrying a gun in a car in a manner that was not legal led to the following. The officer could use discretion.

If it was an assault rifle (let's have another discussion of definition - boring), the officers had a very high probability of arresting you. If it were a handgun or shotgun, they didn't.

Oops - in one case you get the ride, in one case you don't.

As Spats, Frank and I say repeatedly - there is no law of physics that makes a shoot righteous. It is a social decision by the legal authorities involved, the courts and jury. That's why the term is ridiculous.

Use of force in self-defense means that you admit to hurting or killing someone. You have to convince the system that was OK as such actions are bad and can only be justified or excused. It might you feel good to think an action is righteous in a celebratory sense but that is really not a moral or legal perspective.

Usually defenses are that you didn't do - some other dude did it. Here you admit it - why did you do it? Put your best foot forward.

Cases cited repeatedly show how righteous or seemingly justified shooters are tried and sometimes are found to be such.

Hurting others is always bad - but sometimes necessary.
 
Post #125, image is everything....

I disagree with post #125.
If you are on a criminal court or civil trial jury, you are not "duped" or "swayed" by a lawyer/prosecutor if you honestly feel a gun owner's firearm was inappropriate or showed a distinct bias.
If a white gun owner or concealed carry license holder had a semi-auto pistol covered in Confederate flags & "KKK forever!", then killed a black subject, do you think a jury would ignore that fact? :rolleyes:
Would they be "stupid" or "duped by the lawyers" if they considered the murder weapon(court evidence) insulting or condescending? I doubt it.

In the late 1990s, I worked with a federal 083 police officer & USMC veteran(MP active duty). He told me about a local PD near us that quit using the traditional black type man-size paper targets because some civil rights groups were saying it conditioned the police officers to shoot black people! :rolleyes:
Even the FBI & DoJ converted the training targets to a royal blue color with a bowling pin type center.

Clyde
 
Posted by JERRYS: Punisher grips, zombie guns/ammo, they all mean nothing by law because a righteous shoot is just that, no matter what the tool used.
Click to expand...
That is true. They mean nothing, by law.

What does have meaning by law is the decision of a jury. The arriving first responders, the investigators, the charging authority, a grand jury if there is one, and the trial jury, should it come to that, will be faced with piecemeal evidence and testimony, and some of it will likely be contradictory. Absent a continuous, unobstructed, complete sound video record of the entire incident, and given likely eyewitness testimony that most probably does not include an account of what it was that caused the shooter to draw and fire, the jury will have to connect dots that are no longer there to be seen.

Was the defendant justified? Or did he initiate the confrontation, giving up a claim of justification?

The shooter will say one thing, and victim, if he survives, or his friends, will surely say otherwise.

The jury will have to decide.

In this thread, experts have explained to us how certain things about the shooter's choice of weapon and ammunition, clothing, and grooming, and so on can reasonably be expected to influence that decision.

People can choose to ignore it at their own peril.
 
ok. I see where youre coming from. I was misunderstood and I should have clarified my position better.

in this part:
tough call and really depends on if your town is full of people easily duped. some locales have educated people, logic and reason determine most things for them. others have rather simple minded folks who are governed by emotion more than anything else. only you know where you will get a fair trial, where facts determine the outcome instead of playing on the stupidity of the jury.
Click to expand...
I was a little tongue in cheek, but I meant it as when it is decided upon. meaning a "righteous shoot" is not what you or I say immediately after the fact... its after its been investigated, to be a "justified use of lethal force".

im not trying to get off on the wrong foot here, I know how things work, having been involved in three, the last in 2008 (youtube guy posted his account)... the terms you use amongst your peers and the terms you use in court are often quite different, in my experience anyway. I used the punisher grips as an example of how the shooting must be judged on its merits, not the fluff or lack of for social opinion v. the law. a guy in the gas station parking lot at 2 a.m. with facial piercings and a metalica t-shirt gets the same shake as the housewife in her home. the shooting has to be viewed on its facts by the investigating agency, lest we align ourselves with a certain florida prosecutor.
 
JERRYS. said:
Spats and Glenn, I don't know if youre purposely misrepresenting what I said or if its by accident.

Spats, if a shooting is ruled as justified by the investigating agency, will it change after the fact if you now put punisher grips on the gun?

Glenn, would you feel better semantically speaking if I said a justified use of lethal force?
Click to expand...
I don't think I've misrepresented you at all. I took that quote directly from your post.

You took the "good shoot is a good shoot" stance, but that is not how our legal system works. It's only a good shoot after someone else (police/prosecutors/judge/jury) have looked at it and made the decision that it was a good shoot.

JERRYS. said:
. . . . Spats, if a shooting is ruled as justified by the investigating agency, will it change after the fact if you now put punisher grips on the gun? . . . .
Click to expand...
Ummm, why would it? Punisher grips are not illegal.
 
Clyde, youre giving a perfect example with your example of how some people are ruled by emotions instead of facts.

it doesn't matter if Louis farracon (sp?) did the shooting, if it was justified. his personal beliefs only mean something to those with their own bias. a supported fact cannot be disputed intelligently.
 
JERRYS.,
. . . .a guy in the gas station parking lot at 2 a.m. with facial piercings and a metalica t-shirt gets the same shake as the housewife in her home . . .
Click to expand...
While this ought to be true, ask yourself when the last time was that you saw a defendant in a murder trial show up with his piercings and metallica t-shirt. If I had that guy as a client, he'd be given a checklist of things to do before he ever appeared in front of a jury. Said list would include removal of all piercings, a haircut, shave, and new-ish suit (but not brand new). Jurors may not admit it, and they may not even realize it, but appearances matter to them.
 
Spats, that was initial point.... reading back to my first post....
tough call and really depends on if your town is full of people easily duped. some locales have educated people, logic and reason determine most things for them. others have rather simple minded folks who are governed by emotion more than anything else. only you know where you will get a fair trial, where facts determine the outcome instead of playing on the stupidity of the jury.
Click to expand...
 
Posted by JERRYS: a supported fact cannot be disputed intelligently.
Click to expand...
The problem arises when "facts" are lacking, unsupported, and /or disputed by other evidence---and that is likely going to be the case.

At that point, the police, prosecutors, grand jury, and jury are going to have to make judgments.

Did the shooter act only as a last resort, out of immediate necessity? Was he entirely blameless, or did he initiate the confrontation?

Part of the answer will come from indications of mens rea--state of mind. Facts indicating that the shooter may have been predisposed to violence become very important at that point.

Such facts may include T-shirts, signage, video games in his possession, prior internet or social media postings, weapon choice, and ammunition.
 
Great point - as mentioned above, we have cases where competition, OC and training (with great quotes like always cheat, blah, blah) have been used to show state of mind and premeditation.
 
tough call and really depends on if your town is full of people easily duped. some locales have educated people, logic and reason determine most things for them. others have rather simple minded folks who are governed by emotion more than anything else. only you know where you will get a fair trial, where facts determine the outcome instead of playing on the stupidity of the jury.
Click to expand...
And how do you know if you'll even be tried in "your town?" What if you wind up all over the news, and a motion to change venue is filed?

Beyond that, though, it's not a matter of whether your jury is "easily duped." While you and I and other "gunfolk" might all agree, for example, that a 9mm round fired from a box-stock Glock is no different from one fired from a TotallyTrickedOutZombieKiller3000, that might be just the nudge that the jury needs to go from Not Guilty to Guilty, particularly if you're in a locale where non-gunfolk are likely to make up a big part of your jury.
 
Oldmarksman, I understand and agree with oyu, but I also see that it is opinion based at this time when these are considered. I guess I should distinguish what I mean by supported facts v. unsupported facts.

supported fact: this bullet was fired from this gun.

unsupported fact: this man fired this gun 'out of anger and hate'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top